https://theserapeum.com/the-allegations-of-blood-libel-across-jewish-history/
“At the dawn of civilization, the blood rite, in which human blood is drunk from the body of a still-living victim, was known to many tribes. However, only one people, that has never progressed beyond the Stone Age, has continued to practice the blood rite and ritual murder. This people is the Jews. We have already noted that Arnold Toynbee, a noted scholar, has called the Jews “a fossil people”. I n so doing, he must have been aware of the fact that they still practice ritual murder and the drinking of human blood. As a scholar, he could not have failed to note the many attested incidents of this practice of the Jews, for hundreds of examples of ritual murder by the Jews are cited i n official Catholic books, in every European literature, and in the court records of all European nations.
It is the official historian of the Jews, Kastein, in his “History of the Jews”, who gives the underlying reason for this barbaric custom. On page 173, he says, “According to the primeval Jewish view, the blood was the seat of the soul.” Thus it was not the heart which was the seat of the soul, according to the stone-age Jews, but the blood itself. They believed that by drinking the blood of a Christian victim who was perfect in every way, they could overcome their physical short-comings and become as powerful as the intelligent civilized beings among whom they had formed their parasitic communities.
Because of this belief, the Jews are known to have practiced drinking blood since they made their first appearance in history. Civilized people find this practice so abhorrent that they cannot believe it, despite the hundreds of pages of evidence against the Jews which are found i n court records. Historical records for five thousand years have provided irrefutable proof of the blood guilt of the Jews.
As other people became more civilized, the blood rite became a symbolic one, and a symbolic form of blood, usually wine, was drunk during the ritual, while the barbaric practice of killing a victim was given up altogether. Only one group, the Jewish cult, has continued to practice the blood rite i n modern times. Authorities on the blood rite, such as the noted Catholic scholar, James E . Bulger, state that the Jews practice the blood drinking rite because they are a parasitic people who must partake of the blood of the gentile host if they are to continue to survive. Bulger also states that the drinking of blood is a rite of black magic which enables the Jewish rabbis to predict the future as the blood of their gentile victim courses through their veins.
Therefore, Jewish leaders from time to time entice a gentile child, preferably male, and from six to eight years old. According to Jewish ritual, the gentile child must be perfectly formed, intelligent, and without blemish. He also must be younger than the age of puberty, because the Jews’ believe that the blood becomes impure after the beginning of puberty. When the child is enticed into the synagogue, or, if the Jews are under observation, into some more secret gathering-place, the kidnapped child is tied down onto a table, stripped, and its body pierced with sharp ritual knives i n the identical places where the nails entered the body of Christ on the cross. As the blood is drained into cups, the Jewish leaders raise the cups and drink from them, while the gentile child slowly expires in an atmosphere of unrelieved horror. The Jews call down curses upon Christ and on all the gentiles, and celebrate their symbolic victory over the gentiles as they continue to drink the blood of the dying child. Only by performing this rite, so the Jews believe, can they continue to survive and prosper among the gentile host.
"Take this and drink, for this is MY blood of the new covenant". Christ's sacrifice, his blood, was poured out for the forgiveness of sins. Having to have a priest consecrate this was not, I believe, what Jesus had in mind. All those sacraments that some powerful churches deem necessary are all contrived rituals to give the priests power. The act of communion, in my life, is not dependent on a priest. To break bread in remembrance of Christ, to share the wine in remembrance of his sacrifice, at any table of Christians, does not make the wine and bread any less "holy" than if some fancy priest does it. The remembrance of HIS sacrifice of his human body is what is required. Both bread and wine are metaphors of transformation , grapes into wine, grain into bread, all metaphors for what happens to us when we accept Christ, they are symbolic of change, which God requires for salvation. The priest cannot change the wine and bread into the actual body of Christ, Christ gave the ritual to his disciples, and, once baptized, we are disciples, that is our baptismal vow. The church is still copying a blood ritual, when Christ clearly stated that this was a NEW covenant, his blood was enough, and it was spilled once. We are not supposed to go and keep drinking blood, but we are asked to remember his sacrifice.